Jump to content

RCgothic

Members
  • Posts

    2,361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,772 Excellent

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Chartered Nuclear Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If it's there to help re-radiate heat from these edge boundaries then it might save the weight of an extra row of tiles or an extra thickness of steel. In those circumstances the paint could be mass negative.
  2. Pretty sure that's just shadow on the heat shield and reflection of the high bay door on the leeward side.
  3. Seems like the House is proposing full funding for Artemis:
  4. That's not insurmountable. Just include extra baffles or subdivide the main tanks to keep the remaining propellant stable. Recharge the header tanks from the mains once landed.
  5. What's the suborbital range for a full starship, reserving enough fuel for a return trip?
  6. For Apollo, the goal was commanded, the method was flexible. For Artemis, the method is commanded, the goal is flexible. If Congress says they have to build and use SLS, they have to do it. If Congress doesn't give them funds to study other architectures, they can't.
  7. I suppose it could Adama-manoeuvre a load of drones at a height above conventional SAM ceiling and then additionally pancake on a target, but that's kind of ICBM-adjacent. I suspect other nations are unlikely to approve.
  8. Which is why I said "at risk from". I don't think every .22 round would necessarily penetrate, but a weakening, gouging, or ragged entry hole on the side of the tank could easily lead to catastrophic failure. You don't really want to test it. Larger munitions pose exponentially more risk. 5.56mm would easily penetrate 3.5mm of stainless and nobody wants to find out what a tracer, incendiary or explosive round might do.
×
×
  • Create New...